EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XLIX
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
| ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
Even before roles go out, I have a very hectic work schedule. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
Just my thought. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
I merely don't want to waste our votes on someone we can't possibly know anything about (Because they don't post.) This option only makes any sort of sense closer to the end of day 1. Right now, as it stands, we have the next 45-46ish hours to gather/draw conclusions from any information presented. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
At least I don't have that read yet. In like 99.65535% of these novice games (As far as I can tell), policy lynching is a thing. While people in these matches lean towards bringing this up early on, due to the flips results from them, I'm not ready to call that on him yet. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
per the rules, you need to ##Add double pounds, and bold out your submission. This is not a vote Does this work to not cast a vote? I was trying to respond to a post. Not cast a vote. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
Without fully studying it (to make sure my math comes out right), this is what I come up with: Being that there is only 13 players; If there is 11 "for sure town (all listed town/blue roles)" vs 3 "for sure scum roles" That leaves me with a 27% chance to lynch scum with RNG. If there is 10 "for sure town" vs 3 "for sure scum" it's 30% If I take Suess and myself into account for confirmed town it is: 33% and 38% (rounded) respectively. I'm not for certain, but 30+ % chance for randomly tagging a scum role on day 1 with no other option is going to be a lot better than a "afk" lynch. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
And then decide how bad that thought is. Judging by what you just said July, a 100% GUESS at a "afk lynch" is better than a 40% chance to land a scrum roll on the first day within the first 4 hours. My only question is; Are you being serious right now? Because trying to throw off town that hard would seem pretty scummy to me. I'll hold my vote for 2 hours for you to respond. After that I will have to start thinking about going to sleep since I have to work real early. I'm already staying up late for this. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 11:26 SagaZ wrote: As a disclaimer early, I think we should all agree on something. We are all newbies here, so if you fuck up or say something dumb, don't play the "oh sorry, I am new I didn't know". Seuss is our confirmed town, we should try to organize around him. For a day 1 lynch, I think lynching some1 innactive is the best way to go. Having innactive players around just give mafia the opportunity to sit back and do nothing while town runs around screaming at each other. So give information about yourself if you can, so that others will be able to read you easy. My stance this early is easy: I will vote for people that post nothing worthy or nothing at all, unless some1 slips. I am also more likely to vote for people that say suspicious stuff and then say "sorry I didn't know I am new" Ok, your first sentence I like. We know what to expect coming into this game. Everyone here is "Relatively" new. This is not really an excuse. If you let this be an excuse for town, what makes you think the scum won't abuse it twice fold? The only way to solve this problem is to hold EVERYONE to a higher expectation. I like your comment about Monte (AKA SUESS!!! DAMMIT MONTE!!) This calls us town-folk in the right direction. Sadly, it was announced on the beginning of day 1. So odds are, the scum are going to kill Suess early on. They know he's town. Who else do they know is town? How would they know any of the blue roles? Who's better target for them than him?'' The point on "Having in-active players around just give the mafia opps" mean literally nothing. They already have a mod confirmed target. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 16:09 Vonthin wrote: QUOTE]On October 14 2013 15:52 OdinOfPergo wrote: Well, I read through my last post, And then decide how bad that thought is. Judging by what you just said July, a 100% GUESS at a "afk lynch" is better than a 40% chance to land a scrum roll on the first day within the first 4 hours. My only question is; Are you being serious right now? Because trying to throw off town that hard would seem pretty scummy to me. I'll hold my vote for 2 hours for you to respond. After that I will have to start thinking about going to sleep since I have to work real early. I'm already staying up late for this. How is July's thought a bad idea, it is unsafe, while you have a 40% chance to land a scum you have a 60% chance to blame an innocent townie like myself. Police detectives just don't take a group of people then choose one of them at random and arrest them. Don't even understand how you think he is throwing off the town when you are a danger wanting to pick random people to lynch, that is what seems scummy to me.[/QUOTE] Yes. The difference between his and my idea, Is mainly, I have a strong chance to land scum. He has a penny in a hay bail. More over, my idea leaves me the entire rest of D1 to ALTER my vote. While he is claiming, regardless of what happens in the next FORTY hours, that we should waste our votes on "in-active" members that may or may not be mod-killed and replaced anyway. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
How does that work into what I said at all? July didn't even post a counter argument. He just disagreed with what I suggested. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 15:29 July617 wrote: You're going to randomly tag someone who could be potential town and marking them as scum? Doesn't sound like a safe way to play to me . Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky? I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy. [/QUOTE] I don't agree with this at all. How exactly is lynching a afk/lurker at this point better than taking stronger odds chance of a RNG I posted earlier better? I just don't get it. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 16:24 playerboy345 wrote: Agree with this post 100%. We have to keep people talking and find oddities, it's our best chance at catching scum (and something they say might bite them in their ass later). That is a ballsy move, what makes you think it's a good idea to go ballsdeep on him because of his ONE post? Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky? I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy. LOL Screw it. EBWOP. I obviously can't quote things worth nothin'. So, in case of future reference I'm re-quoting so we have a 100% un-altered chat log for me to reference. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
We can force early conversation with a RNG. Best case scenario; We rid ourselves of a scum role. Worst case scenario; We have to change our votes because a townie defends himself. This is the entire reason I found the previous post twards this questionable. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 16:33 playerboy345 wrote: You are contradicting yourself. First you say you don't want to waste your vote on someone who doesn't post and then you proceed to push for a RANDOM lynch. Alright, allow me to clarify in lamest terms for you. If town lynches a lurker/afk that has not posted at the end of day one. Odds are, is that SAME person will proceed to afk and NOT VOTE (Which is mandatory I might add.) Resulting in a mod-kill. This outcome leads to the ENTIRE TOWN wasting their votes on a lynch that meant LITERALLY NOTHING Why take these odds when you have much better odds with a rng? We can alter rng votes according to what players argue. We can apply pressure to try to flesh of scum on day 1 with these votes. We can move the town in the right direction with these votes. Now please answer me; What the heck do you find scummy about my suggestion? | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 16:47 Seuss wrote: Odin, you basically have 50% of all posts since the game began. Curb your enthusiasm. I'm just trying to get discussion rolling Monte.. Why are you trying to stop it?  | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 16:37 Vonthin wrote: He was just saying he disagreed with your methods, he didn't say anywhere(unless I missed something which i don't think i did) that we waste our votes lynching inactive members which you said he did in one of your earlier posts. Both lynching RNG/getting the inactive person is both sorta stupid Ok, sorry. This was my ms-understanding then. I think I've spent enough time defending my position on my recommendation. Hopefully people will get back to me on it. I refuse to set this up/ push for this if people seriously think I'm being scummy for doing it. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
Makes a good point, but would it really be all that smart for scum to play risky? I don't necessarily agree with his post but I don't see it as scummy. @PLAYERBOI, I was referring to this comment. | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
You brought up something about me not referencing (I'm glad you did now that I re-read.) So I jumped to conclusions. Sorry, like I said, I work really long hours. If I say something retarded; I hope you guys don't write me off for it. But please do allow me a few hours to explain myself. (Because unless I have the following day off I will most likely be asleep before any meaningful convo. takes place.) | ||
|
OdinOfPergo
United States840 Posts
On October 14 2013 16:33 playerboy345 wrote: You are contradicting yourself. First you say you don't want to waste your vote on someone who doesn't post and then you proceed to push for a RANDOM lynch. I tried to clear this up. This is what I was talking about Player. If I failed at it, I will try to re-word it so it is easier to understand. | ||
| ||
